MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333150056 · doi:10.2307/25095537

Japanese and Chinese Immigrant Activists: Organizing in American and International Communist Movements, 1919-1933. By Josephine Fowler. (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2007. xvi, 272 pp. Cloth, $70.00, ISBN 978-0-8135-4040-5. Paper, $27.95, ISBN 978-0-8135-4041-2.)

2008· article· en· W2333150056 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Allan W. Austin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of American History · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJapanese History and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationCommunismHistoryMedia studiesArt historyPolitical scienceSociologyLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Japanese and Chinese Immigrant Activists, Josephine Fowler sets out to write a broad transnational history that meaningfully integrates leftist Japanese and Chinese migrants into fields from which they have been traditionally excluded, especially the histories of American Communism and Asian America. Working “at the intersection of several interdisciplinary fields,” Fowler examines a broad range of topics, from questions of agency to both practical and theoretical inquiries about space, identity, race, gender, and nation (p. 3). The author grounds her work in transnational approaches increasingly popular with historians of labor, immigration, and Asian Americans to write a detailed study focused on the role of Chinese and Japanese migrants in creating and sustaining networks that facilitated the flow of people and ideas across national boundaries in North America, Europe, and Asia. While Fowler acknowledges the continued power of the nation-state, she rightfully insists on a broader examination of activists, information, and ideology.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of American HistorySame topicJapanese History and CultureFrench-language works237,207